De nombreuses recherches ont été faites dans le monde entier sur les insectes comestibles.

L’Université de Wageningen est pionnière au niveau mondial dans ce domaine.

research1University of Wageningen – Edible Insects

To feed a growing world population with progressively more demanding consumers, food production needs to be increased. This puts a heavy pressure on already limited resources of land, fertilizers and energy, while greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, deforestation, and environmental degradation will increase.
http://www.wageningenur.nl/en/Expertise-Services/Chair-groups/Plant-Sciences/Laboratory-of-Entomology/Edible-insects.htm

Rapport Study

” Edible insects: future prospects for food and feed security”
(FAO Forestry Paper 171. FAO, Rome and WUR, Wageningen)
http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3253e/i3253e00.htm

resultsMan Bites Insect

David Gracer eats bugs. Not any old crushed, oozy, sidewalk kind of bug, but insects selected just like any other food — for sustenance and taste. He eats them sautéed, filleted and roasted. And he thinks you should eat them, too.

At a time when “reality” television shows regularly force contestants to consume creepy-crawlies for shock value, Gracer is one of a small but growing number of people earnestly working to transcend the yuck factor. By day, Gracer teaches expository writing at the Community College of Rhode Island. By night, he stalks America’s elite chefs with an electric wok and Tupperware stuffed with six-legged critters in an attempt to convince them that consuming insects is both pleasing to the palate and good for the planet.

Of course, man has eaten bugs most of his existence. The Greeks and the Romans ate them. John the Baptist partook, and yes, locusts are even kosher. Many cultures in Asia, Africa and the Americas still raise insects as livestock or gather them through foraging. If Gracer and his peers have their way, the United States will soon join them. It will be home to domestic insect farms, employ arthropod husbandry experts and begin processing insect “mini-livestock” into food — breads made from insect flour as well as whole bugs in various life stages like pupae and larvae. After all, if Americans love shrimp and lobster, why won’t they eat their terrestrial cousins?

Already, some high-end eateries have made the jump to serving insects. Typhoon, a Pan-Asian restaurant at Santa Monica Airport, regularly sells out of its six-legged appetizers like Singapore-style scorpions with shrimp toast and “Chambi Ants” — potato strings with a sprinkling of the tiny black picnic pests.

On a recent afternoon, I watched Gracer and a chef at a gourmet ice-cream shop in Cambridge, Mass., sample Thai giant water bug and chapolines, the diminutive Mexican grasshoppers. The water bug, a creature the size of your thumb, with a mean-looking proboscis, yields a thimbleful of meat the consistency of crab and has a surprisingly powerful citrus aroma. After importation and preparation, its flesh can cost hundreds of dollars a pound. The more modest roasted chapolines resemble russet pipe tobacco and deliver a chitin-rich crunch. Neatly prepared and placed in plastic food containers, they look tame, symmetrical — even tasty. So what are we afraid of?

Florence Dunkel, an entomologist and editor of The Food Insect Newsletter, says: “For most Americans, fear of insects is a social aversion. It’s not rational. People in other societies were introduced to bugs at an early age. It’s just not the way we grew up.” Which is true, but most of us associate insects with disease. Mosquitoes cause encephalitis; deer ticks bring bull’s-eyes and Lyme disease; and we regard cockroaches as unclean.

But how dirty are they? As it turns out, not very. While insects carry an abundance of microbial flora, they do not regularly harbor human pathogens like salmonella and E. coli. Put another way, insects don’t seem any more prone to disease than cows, pigs, chickens or fish, all of which need to be raised and cooked properly. It can also be argued that these insects boost the nutritional content of what we already eat. Bugs compare favorably to traditional livestock in available protein and fatty acids; for some vitamins and minerals, they better them by a wide margin.

In the kitchen at Toscanini’s Ice Cream, David Gracer plunged a spoon into various insect-and-ice-cream concoctions. Wielding a grasshopper covered in burned caramel, he said: “Insects can feed the world. Cows and pigs are the S.U.V.’s; bugs are the bicycles.”

Provocative as that sounds, insects do meet the test of environmental sustainability: they create far more edible protein per pound of feed as cattle. Moreover, given world consumption trajectories, scientists warn that a complete collapse of global fish stocks is possible in the next 40 years. We might want to hedge our bets. Perhaps then it’s no surprise that the concept of bugs as food is getting serious consideration from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Later this month, it will stage a workshop called “Forest Insects as Food: Humans Bite Back” in Chiang Mai, Thailand. Among the questions to be addressed: Why douse fields with pesticides if the bugs we kill are more nutritious than the crops they eat?

Journal of Insect Science

Nutritional and antinutritional composition of the five
species of aquatic edible insects consumed in Manipur, India
T. Shantibalaa*, R. K. Lokeshwarib, H. Debarajc
Institute of Bioresources and Sustainable Development, Department of Biotechnology, Government of India,
Takyelpat-795001, Manipur, India
Abstract
The people living in Manipur have a distinct identity, culture, and food habits. They have a prototype
culture of eating insects. In our study, the nutritive contents of five potentially-edible aquatic
insects, Lethocerus indicus (Lepeletier and Serville) (Hemiptera: Belostomatidae), Laccotrephes
maculatus (F.), Hydrophilus olivaceous (F.) (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae), Cybister tripunctatus
(Olivier), and Crocothemes servilia (Drury) (Odonata: Libellulidae), were analyzed to inform
consumers about the nutritional quality of the insects and the suggested quantity of their intake. A
good amount of protein content and high gross energy was recorded among the insects. The results
showed high levels of sodium, calcium, and magnesium present in the insects, indicating
that they are a good source of minerals. Antinutritional properties of these insects were below
0.52%, which is a non-toxic level. Aquatic insects, such as C. tripunctatus, also possesses strong
antioxidant activity (110 μg/mL). Therefore, these insects can play a major role in food security,
health, and environment management. It is essential to cultivate edible insects to maintain their
population sustainability.
Introduction
Many species of insects serve as traditional foods among indigenous peoples and they play an important role in human nutrition. Attempts have been made in the past to ensure adequate nutritional and functional quality
food supplements are affordable to a target population using the staple commodities of a region (Orr 1997). Traditionally-consumed unconventional food items may supplement the dietary requirement of a population, thus preventing the development of a wide range of diseases associated with malnutrition and others (Mishra et al. 2003). Generally, edible insects represent significant biological resources that are rich in protein, amino acids, fat, carbohydrates, various vitamins, and trace elements (Xiaoming et al. 2010). It has been hypothesized that a 10% increase in the world supply of animal protein through mass production of insects would largely eliminate the malnutrition problem and also decrease the pressure on other protein sources (Robert 1989). Therefore, insects offer an important nutritional resource for humans and are worthy of development in various bio-prospecting aspects (Xiaoming and Ying 1999). People of many ethnic origins living in Manipur capture and consume many insect species located in puddles, ponds, lakes, rivers, etc. Among the edible insects, aquatic insects are one of the most favorable groups among consumers due to their taste and high availability. During the rainy season, there is an abundance of aquatic insects in various inland water bodies. In the valley region of the state, there are many inland freshwater lakes that act as a source of aquatic edible insects. While eating insects is common practice in the region, there is little information about the nutritive value of these edible insects. The nutritive values of these insects will inform consumers about the quality and ideal quantity of insect intake. In the meantime, this information can be utilized in the development of nutritional food supplements. Our study was designed to evaluate the nutritive content of five potential aquatic edible insects, Lethocerus indicus (Lepeletier and Serville) (Hemiptera: Belostomatidae), Laccotrephes maculatus (F.) (Hemiptera: Belostomatidae), Hydrophilus olivaceous (F.) (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae), Cybister tripunctatus (Olivier), and Crocothemes servilia (Drury) (Odonata: Labullidae). The taxonomic position, consumption stage, and method of preparation are noted (Table. 1). Materials and Methods Assays. The insects were collected from the ponds andsubmerged paddy fields and adjoining areas of Tangkham Lamphel Pat, Khundrakpam, Imphal East District, Manipur, India, situated 16 km from the Institute of Bioresources and Sustainable Development Imphal. Nitrogen was determined by the micro-Kjeldahl method (Pearson 1976). To obtain
true protein content, the non-protein nitrogen was extracted with ice-cold 10% TCA and titration against the standard acid. The calculated non-protein nitrogen value was deducted from the total nitrogen content and then multiplied by the factor, 6.25, to determine the actual crude protein content. The moisture content of the sample was estimated following the method of Hart and Fisher (1971). Freshly-collected aquatic insects
were weighed and kept in an incubator at 66° C until a constant weight was obtained. The difference between initial and final Journal of Insect Science: Vol. 14 | Article 14 Shantibala et al. Journal of Insect Science | http://www.insectscience.org 3 weight was calculated, and the moisture content was represented in percentage.

The carbohydrate content was determined by the Anthrone method (Dubois et al. 1956). Total crude fat content was determined by homogenizing and soaking the sample with chloroform-methanol mixture (2:1 v/v) for
around 3–4 hours. Then 0.6% NaCl was mixed at the ratio of 1:1 to the filtrate and left overnight to obtain a clear solution. The sample was then dried, giving the lipid content of the sample (Folch et al.1956). The ash content was estimated by using a muffle furnace (NSW Model-103, www.nsw-inda.com) at 600° C to constant weight. The crude fiber content was estimated following the method of AOAC (1990). Two grams of fat-free,
powdery form of each sample was heated with 200 mL of 0.25 N sulphuric acid solution for 30 minute and filtered using a Buchner funnel. Then, after washing with distilled water, the residue was again boiled with 200 mL of 0.313 N sodium hydroxide for 30 min. The filtered residue was washed with boiling water. It was washed again with 10% HCl and twice with ethanol. The residue was dried in an oven overnight at 100° C. After cooling, it was ignited in a muffle furnace at 500° C for three hours to obtain the weight of the ash (AOAC 1990). The energy content was estimated using a digital bomb calorimeter, model RSB-3/5/6/6A (Rajdhani Scientific Instrument) designed in accordance with the specifications of the Institute of Petroleum and British Standard Institution (IS: 1350-1966). For the energy estimation, the known weight of the pellet sample was placed inside the “bomb,” which was then sealed with oxygen. Then the sample was ignited electrically. The heat released during complete oxidation of the compound was measured through the temperature
change in the water bath surrounding the bomb by a digital sensor. The heat of combustion at a constant volume was calculated from the resulting rise in temperature using the formula: CVs = TxW – (CVt – CVw) / M
where, T = final rise in temperature in °C, M = mass of sample in grams, W = water equivalent in calories per ° C, CVt = caloric value of thread (2.1/cm), CVw = caloric value of ignition wire (2.33/cm), and CVs = caloric valueof sample.

The mineral content was determined after wet digestion of sample with a mixture of sulfuric, nitric, and perchloric acids at the ratio of 1:10:4 using an atomic absorption spectrophotometer (model AAS-200/Analyst Version 6, PerkinElmer, www.perkinelmer.com). Tannin content was determined by the qualitative method using tannic acid as standard solution (Enujiugha and Ayodele-Oni 2003). A finely-ground sample (0.2 g) was soaked in 10 mL of 70% acetone for 15 minutes in ice water. To the filtrate, 0.5 mL of lowery reagent and 2.5 mL of 20% sodium carbonate was added and incubated for 40 minutes. Absorbance was measured at 700 nm Total phenolic content was estimated by using Folin-Ciocalteu reagent (Kahkonen 1999). The antioxidant potential of the methanol extract was determined on the basis of their scavenging activity of stable 1,1-diphenyl-2- picryl hydrazyl (DPPH) free radicals (Sánchez-Moreno et al. 1998). Ascorbic acid was used as the standard, and the absorbancewas measured at 517 nm. The IC50 value denotes the concentration of the sample required to scavenge 50% of the DPPH free radicals.

Statistical analysis
The data obtained for proximate composition, mineral, and antinutritional values were analyzed with one-way ANOVA. Comparison between mean was made by Tukey’s HSD test. Data are reported as the mean ± SEM. A
significance level of 0.05 was used to reject the null hypothesis. Data analysis was done with the help of Statistica Version10 (StatSoft, www.statsoft.com).

Results
Proximate compositions Parameters such as moisture, crude protein, carbohydrate, lipid, ash, fiber, and energy were analyzed for five species of aquatic edible insects, and the results are presented in Table 2. There were significant differences in the means of the proximate compositions among the insect species (p < 0.05). Regarding moisture content, H. olivaceous showed the highest percentage of moisture while C. servilla had the least value. There was a significant variation in mean value of moisture content among the five different insects at α = 0.05. The level of protein content of C. servilia was found to be higher than the other species. Overall, a good amount of protein content was noticed among the aquatic edible insects. A significant variation of protein content was observed at 5% level of ANOVA. However, there was insignificant variation in the percentage of carbohydrates among the aquatic insects. The percentage was lowest in L. maculatus and highest in H. olivaceous. It was observed that all the five insect species contained a low amount of carbohydrates.There was no significant difference in total lipid content among the H. olivaceous, L. maculatus, and C. servilia (α = 0.05), but there was a significant difference between L. indicus and C. tripunctatus. The highest percentageof lipid content was observed in C. tripunctatus compared to the other four species.The energy available in the carbohydrates, protein, and fat was also analyzed. A total of about 563.84 kcal/100 g of energy was provided on average per insect. The highest amount of energy was found in L. indicus, while the lowest was found in C. servilia. A significant variation of fiber content was observed among the aquatic edible insects, except for C. tripunctatus and H. olivaceous. The highest ash content, which was observed in C. tripunctatus, showed insignificant variation with the amount of ash content in L. indicus. The other three aquatic insects H. olivacious, L. maculatus and C. servilia showed non-significant ash content. Mineral profile Out of the micro-nutrient compositions, sodium was the most prominent in L. indicus, H. olivaceous, L. maculatus and C. servilia (Table 3). There was a significant difference among the species (p ≤ 0.05). Potassium was the most prominent nutrient observed in C. tripunctatus. In general, a high amount of calcium and magnesium were noticed in all the
insects. The calcium content was lowest in H. olivaceous and highest in L. indicus, whereas magnesium lowest in C. tripunctatus and highest H. olivaceous. No significant difference of iron concentration was observed bebetween C. servilia and C. tripunctatus, but there were significant differences among the remaining species at a 5% probability level. The zinc content was lowest in C. tripunctatusand highest in L. indicus. The copper content was relatively low in all species except L. maculatus. Antinutritional factor The estimations of antinutritional factors such as tannin and phenol are presented in Table 4. The phenol and tannin concentrations of the species were not significantly different from one another.

The value of antinutritional parameters was below 0.52% in all species. Antioxidant properties DPPH free radical scavenging assay of methanol extract of the aquatic edible insects compared with standard ascorbic acid was analyzed and is presented in Figure 1. The IC50% of the insects ranged from 110 (C. tripunctatus) to 880 μg/mL (C. servilia). The species with lesser IC50% values had stronger antioxidant properties. Therefore, among the species, C. tripunctatus had the best antioxidant property. The IC50% of C. servilia was 880 μg/mL, which was comparatively higher than the other four species.

Discussion
The present study examined insects typically consumed by humans in Manipur, India. The practice of entomophagy had also been reported in all seven states of the Northeast region (Pathak and Rao 2000; Chakravorty
2011) and in other countries such as Thailand (Hanboonsong 2008) and Mexico (Ramos- Elorduy et al. 2009). Consumption of these aquatic insects is common because people tend to use insects that are readily available, The insects studied showed high amounts of nutritional content.The protein content, which was obtained after removal of the non-protein nitrogen, was comparable with that found in Ephemeroptera (66.26 %), Odonata (40–65%), Hemiptera (42–73%), and Coleoptera (23–66%) by Xiaoming et al. (2008). The protein content (%) exhibited by the insects was significantly higher than in conventional animal meats, and therefore insects may offer an affordable source of protein to counteract protein malnutrition (Kariuki 1991). The carbohydrate content of these aquatic insects (< 2.39%) was within the range of 1–10% reported
in edible insects (Xiaoming et al. 2008). The fat content of edible insects lies between 10 and 50% (Ying et al. 2001; DeFoliart 1991). The high fat content of the diving beetle, C. tripunctatus (21.57%) can contribute
significantly as a source of oil in diets. The fatty acid of edible insects is different from other animal fats, as it has higher fatty acids that the human body needs (Xiaoming et al. 2008). Detailed studies on the oils in edible
insects, such as sterol content and saturated and non-saturated fatty acids, are a topic for future research. The crude fiber contents of the insects in this study were quite high, similar to other edible insects such as termites (29.58 g/kg) (Adeduntan 2005) and Componotus sp. (15.95%) (Mbah and Elekima 2007). High crude fiber content in the insects could be due to the chitin normally found in insects (Akinnawo and Ketiku 2000). The high crude fiber content can be used to complement animal roughages in addition to other uses mentioned earlier (Mbah and Elekima 2007). The gross energy value given by these edible insects depends on the amount of protein, fat, and carbohydrate contents in the insect. All the studied species had high gross energy values, a finding similar to the high caloric content value reported from 78 other species of edible insects (Ramos-Elorduy et al. 1997). Because the ash content of a sample is a reflection of the minerals it contains (Adeyeye 2000), these insects were therefore found to be rich in minerals. The level of minerals present in edible insects indicates that insects are good sources of minerals for the human body (Kinyuru et al. 2010). Sodium was the highest among the macro minerals. Most insects with detritivorous, predaceous, and blood-sucking
feeding habits have higher concentrations of sodium than phytophagous insects (Chapman 1998). Because sodium is both an electrolyte and mineral, it helps to maintain the amount of fluid inside and outside the body’s cells and the electrolyte balance in the body. The potassium content of these aquatic insects was very high, so they could be a good source of potassium in diets. The amount of magnesium in these insects was higher than in conventional food items such as bajra (0.137%) and soybeans (0.175%). Magnesium is essential in maintaining both the acid-alkali balance in the body and the healthy functioning of nerves and muscles (Paul and Dey 2011). Lethocerus indicus had considerably higher amounts of iron as compared to other insects, such as Bombyx mori (1.8 mg/100 g) (Dunkei 1996) and Cirina forda (5.34 mg/100 g) (Omotoso 2006). The insects were also a better source of iron compared to the main available sources,such as red meats (Williams 2007). The concentration of zinc in these insects was comparable to those in terrestrial insects (Kinyuru et al. 2010). The amount of calcium in aquatic insects (24.3–96 mg/100 g) is much higher than in different terrestrial insects (0.0012–0.126 mg/100 g) (Adeduntan 2005). The high amount of calcium content in insects could be used as a supplement for children and adolescents who are still developing their bones and teeth. Minerals such as selenium and manganese were reported to present in trace amounts in some other edible insects such as Cirina forda (Omotoso, 2006) and bees (Finke, 2005). The antinutritional factors of these insects were found to be low. The tannin in other edible insects, such as locust, ants, termites, and grasshoppers, were higher
(Adeduntan 2005; Hassan et al. 2008) than the insects in our study. Tannins have traditionally been considered antinutritional, but it is now known that their beneficial or antinutritional properties depend upon their
chemical structure and dosage (Muller-Harvey and McAllan 1992). Oral ingestion of 6% diet of the tannin punicalagins for 37 days was found to show non-toxic effects in rats (Cerdá et al. 2003). Phenol causes many subtle effects to the biota, such as reduced fertility,decreased survival of the young, and inhibition of growth (Babich and Davis 1981). A minimal lethal oral dose of phenol has been estimated for adults at approximately 70 mg/kg (ATSDR 2011). It can metabolize readily through the process of eating. The phenol content in the aquatic insects was below the lethal dose. Consumption of these insects will not cause any harmful effect.
In addition to the macro- and micro-nutrient contents, antioxidant properties were also observed in these insects. Among them, C. tripunctatus possessed strong antioxidant activity, but it was lower than the antioxidant
activity of the plant extract of Calotropis procera (121.25 μg/mL) (Yesmin et al. 2008). Edible insects can be considered a quality food item that can enhance the maintenance of health and protect from aging related diseases (Hsu 2006). However, despite all the environmental and nutritional advantages entomophagy offers, it is unlikely to become a mainstream dining option in the near future. The key factor will be in understanding and raising awareness of the potential contributions that edible insects can make to the environment, nutrition, and people’s livelihoods. In many parts of the world where eating insects has been a common element of traditional culture, the practice is waning due to modernization and changing attitudes. In these areas, reviving the tradition of eating insects has significant potential to improverural livelihoods, enhance nutrition, and contributeto sustainable management of insect habitats (Durst and Shono 2008).

Conclusion
The existence of the culture of eating insects in Manipur ensures nutritional needs of the indigenous people are being met. Although the use of edible insects has been trivialized, they can play a major role in food security,
health, and environment management. Edible insects are rich in protein, fat, carbohydrates, minerals, and other activated elements that promote human health. Insects are characterized by rich species diversity and large populations, therefore as nutritive resources, they can be widely exploited and have great development potential. It is also necessary to cultivate important edible insect species to sustain them.

U.N. Urges Eating Insects; 8 Popular Bugs to Try

From beetles to stinkbugs, people in dozens of countries eat insects.

Ants are sweet, nutty little insects, aren’t they?

I’m not talking about their personalities, but how they taste. Stinkbugs have an apple flavor, and red agave worms are spicy. A bite of tree worm apparently brings pork rinds to mind.

This information will come in handy for those of us following the latest recommendation from the United Nations: Consume more insects.

report released Monday by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization reminds us that there are more than 1,900 edible insect species on Earth, hundreds of which are already part of the diet in many countries.

In fact, some two billion people eat a wide variety of insects regularly, both cooked and raw; only in Western countries does the practice retain an “ick” factor among the masses.

Why eat something that we usually swat away or battle with insecticides? For starters, many insects are packed with protein, fiber, good fats, and vital minerals—as much or more than many other food sources.

One example: mealworms, the larval form of a particular species of darkling beetle that lives in temperate regions worldwide. Mealworms provide protein, vitamins, and minerals on par with those found in fish and meat. Another healthful treat: small grasshoppers rank up there with lean ground beef in protein content, with less fat per gram. (Related video: Family learns how to cook and prepare mealworms.)

And raising and harvesting insects requires much less land than raising cows, pigs, and sheep. Insects convert food into protein much more efficiently than livestock do—meaning they need less food to produce more product. They also emit considerably fewer greenhouse gases than most livestock (think gassy cows).

Entomophagy, the consumption of insects as food, is also a safe and healthy way to help reduce pest insects without using insecticides. Plus, gathering and farming insects can offer new forms of employment and income, especially in developing tropical countries where a lot of “edibles” live.

That helps to explain why 36 African countries are “entomophagous,” as are 23 in the Americas, 29 in Asia, and even 11 in Europe. With so many species swarming the globe it’s difficult to parse out the specific ones most often eaten, so we’ll go a little broader—to the top edible insect groups. According to my favorite cookbook, Creepy Crawly Cuisine by biologist Julieta Ramos-Elorduy, a leading proponent of the entomophagy movement, here are the eight critters most often ingested worldwide.

1. Beetles

The most commonly eaten beetles are the long-horned, june, dung, and rhinoceros varieties. These are munched by people living in the Amazon basin, parts of Africa, and other heavily forested regions, both tropical and temperate, as diverse species are easily found in trees, fallen logs, and on the forest floor. (Native Americans, I’ve heard, would roast them over coals and eat them like popcorn.) They are efficient at turning cellulose from trees (indigestible to humans) into digestible fat. Beetles also have more protein than most other insects.

2. Butterflies and Moths

They do more than look pretty fluttering across a meadow; these winged insects, during their larval and pupal stages, are succulent and full of protein and iron. They’re very popular in African countries, and are an excellent supplement for children and pregnant women who may be deficient in these nutrients. In Central and South America, fat and fleshy agave worms, which live between the leaves of the agave plant and turn into butterflies, are highly sought after for food and as the famed worm dropped into mescal, a Mexican liquor. Cultivation of these worms could help protect them from overharvesting.

3. Bees and Wasps

We love bees for their honey, but they have more to give. Indigenous people in Asia, Africa, Australia, South America, and Mexico commonly eat these insects when they are in their immature stages. Stingless bees are most commonly munched, with wasps a distant second. Bee brood (bees still in egg, larval, or pupal form tucked away in hive cells) taste like peanuts or almonds. Wasps, some say, have a pine-nutty flavor.

4. Ants

You’re probably thinking that it takes a lot of ants to make a meal. True. But they pack a punch: 100 grams of red ant (one of thousands of ant species) provide some 14 grams of protein (more than eggs), nearly 48 grams of calcium, and a nice hit of iron, among other nutrients. All that in less than 100 calories. Plus, they’re low in carbs.

5. Grasshoppers, Crickets, and Locusts

Grasshoppers and their ilk are the most consumed type of insect, probably because they’re simply all over the place and they’re easy to catch. There are a lot of different kinds, and they’re a great protein source. The hoppers have a neutral flavor, so they pick up other flavors nicely. Cricket curry, anyone? Meanwhile, locusts move in swarms that devastate vegetation in countries where people are already struggling to eat—one of several reasons to turn them into dinner. (See video: Family prepares a cricket stir-fy.)

6. Flies and Mosquitoes

Not as popular as some of the others, these insects—including edible termites and, yes, lice—still have a place at some tables. Flies that develop on various types of cheese take on the flavor of their host, and the species from water habitats may taste like duck or fish.

7. Water Boatmen and Backswimmers

Easy to cultivate and harvest, these cosmopolitan little guys deposit eggs on the stems of aquatic plants, in both freshwater and saltwater environments—even in stagnant water. The eggs can be dried and shaken from the plants to make Mexican caviar (tastes like shrimp), or eaten fresh for their fishy flavor.

8. Stinkbugs

If you can get past the funky smell, these insects apparently add an apple flavor to sauces and are a valuable source of iodine. They’re also known to have anesthetic and analgesic properties. Who would have thought?

Trends towards 2050 predict a steady population increase to 9 billion people, forcing an increased food/feed output from available agro-ecosystems resulting in an even greater pressure on the environment. Scarcities of agricultural land, water, forest, fishery and biodiversity resources, as well as nutrients and non-renewable
energy are foreseen. Edible insects contain high quality protein, vitamins and amino acids for humans. Insects have a high food conversion rate, e.g. crickets need six times less feed than cattle, four times less than sheep, and twice less than pigs and broiler chickens to produce the same amount of protein. Besides, they emit less greenhouse gases and ammonia than conventional livestock. Insects can be grown on organic waste. Therefore, insects are a potential source for conventional production (mini-livestock) of protein, either for direct human consumption, or indirectly in recomposed foods (with extracted protein from insects); and as a protein source into feedstock mixtures.

Since 2003, FAO has been working on topics pertaining to edible insects in many countries worldwide. FAO ’s contributions cover the following thematic areas:

  • the generation and sharing of knowledge through publications, expert meetings and a web portal on edible insects;
  • awareness-raising on the role of insects through media collaboration (e.g. newspapers, magazines and TV);
  • the provision of support to member countries through field projects (e.g. the Laos Technical Cooperation Project);
  • networking and multidisciplinary interactions (e.g. stakeholders working with nutrition, feed and legislation-related issues) with various sectors within and outside FAO .